9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 587 - AT - Central ExciseNon Compliance of provisions of Section 35 B(2) by the committee of Chief Commissioners while passing the review orders - Committee of Commissioner has simplicitor signed the proposals presented before them by the junior officer to file an appeal against the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - Commissioner of Central Excise-I and Commissioner of Central Excise-II who allegedly constitute the Committee of Commissioners, simply appended their signatures to the aforesaid note on 7th January and 8th January, 2008 respectively. This shows that there was no meeting of the aforesaid two officers to consider the case. The record also does not disclose that these two officers applied their mind to the issue and recorded any opinion, as per the requirement of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act that the order of the Commissioner (A) was not legal or proper and warranted to be challenged by filing an appeal. there should be a meaningful consideration which should be reflected on the note sheets in order to comply with the requirement of Section 35(2) of the Act. In this case, the file does not show any such satisfaction or opinion having been recorded by the Committee of Commissioners - commissioner merely signed the proposals placed before him by the junior officer by writing the words accepted - there is no application of mind by the Committee of Commissioners and they have merely appended their signatures to the note sheets prepared by the subordinate officers. In that view of the matter, the review order has to be held as not sustainable and consequently appeals have to be held as not maintainable - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved
1. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act. 2. Compliance with procedural requirements by the Committee of Chief Commissioners. 3. Application of mind by the Committee of Chief Commissioners in the review order. 4. Precedent cases and their applicability to the current case. Detailed Analysis 1. Maintainability of the Appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act The respondent's advocate raised a strong objection to the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the provisions of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act were not fully complied with by the Committee of Chief Commissioners when passing the review orders. The advocate highlighted that the committee merely signed the proposals presented by a junior officer without independently applying their mind. 2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements by the Committee of Chief Commissioners The review order indicated that the Committee of Commissioners simply signed the proposals without any independent consideration. The note sheet showed that one Commissioner signed on 11.02.2011 and the other on 21.02.2011, without any meaningful deliberation or recorded opinion. This lack of procedural compliance was pivotal in determining the maintainability of the appeal. 3. Application of Mind by the Committee of Chief Commissioners in the Review Order The Tribunal referred to several precedent cases to emphasize the necessity of a meaningful application of mind by the Committee of Commissioners. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi V/s. Kundalia Industries, the Delhi High Court observed that the Committee must form an opinion about the illegality of the order and authorize an appeal, which was not evident in the present case. Similarly, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CCE, Delhi Vs. B.E. Office Automation Products Pvt. Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court in Commr. of C. Ec. & Cus., Surat Vs. Shree Ganesh Dyeing & PTNG. Works underscored the requirement of a substantive evaluation by the Committee, which was lacking here. 4. Precedent Cases and Their Applicability to the Current Case The Tribunal considered various High Court decisions and previous Tribunal rulings. Notably, the Allahabad High Court in CCE, Kanpur Vs. Ufan Chemicals held that different signing dates by Commissioners do not vitiate the order if there is an application of mind. However, the Tribunal's decision in M/s. L R Sharma & Co. emphasized that mere mechanical signing without due application of mind does not satisfy statutory obligations. The Tribunal concluded that the Committee's actions in the current case did not meet the required legal standards. Conclusion The Tribunal found that the Committee of Commissioners merely appended their signatures to the proposals without independent consideration, violating the statutory requirements of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the review order was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability due to lack of application of mind by the Committee of Commissioners.
|
